THE CONVENTIONAL GOALS OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE ARE DESCRIBED IN TERMS OF INCAPACITATION, DETERRENCE, RETRIBUTION, AND REHABILITATION. THREE VIEWS OF REHABILITATION ARE OUTLINED: THE PREVENTION OF RECIDIVISM BY ANY MEANS; THE PREVENTION OF RECIDIVISM WHILE GUARDING THE WELFARE OF THE OFFENDER; AND THE PREVENTION OF RECIDIVISM WHILE ATTEMPTING TO MAKE THE OFFENDER A GOOD CITIZEN. THE THIRD VIEW IS SAID TO BE MOST DIFFICULT TO ADVANCE WHEN THERE IS EMPHASIS ON DETERRENCE AND RETRIBUTION. THE CASE FOR RETAINING REHABILITATION AS A CRIMINAL JUSTICE GOAL IS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING POINTS: REHABILITATION HAS NOT BEEN PROVED INEFFECTIVE; DETERRENCE AND REHABILITATION CAN BE COMPATIBLE; LENGTH OF INCARCERATION SHOULD NOT BE AFFECTED BY LENGTH OF REHABILITATION; HUMANE PEOPLE NATURALLY TRY TO REHABILITATE OTHERS; AND REHABILITATION IS ECONOMICAL. THE INHERENT MORAL RIGHTNESS OF REHABILITATION IS ALSO DISCUSSED. REHABILITATION SETTINGS, APPROACHES, AND PROBLEMS ARE REVIEWED. DIFFICULTIES IN DECIDING ON RELEASE DATES AND IN PREDICTING FUTURE VIOLENCE ARE NOTED, AS ARE THE EFFECTS OF POSTRELEASE REHABILITATIVE SERVICES IN DIMINISHING THE RISK OF RECIDIVISM. THE DISCUSSION CLOSES WITH AN ETHICAL QUESTION: HOW FAR IS SOCIETY ENTITLED TO GO IN CHANGING AN OFFENDER PSYCHOLOGICALLY AND PHYSIOLOGICALLY IN THE NAME OF REHABILITATION? (LKM)